• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Facts that aren't facts everyone asserts as truisms

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,931
Reaction score
21,529
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is NOT to argue the case really, but to review the "debate" - and HOW MUCH OF IT WAS FALSE OR BASED ON ASSERTING TRUISMS ON SPECULATION.


I probably shouldn't bother with this, although I have more messages on the Zimmerman/Martin board, I had to leave it months ago because it was crazy making redundant - largely on asserted facts as truisms - that weren't truisms. Here's what comes to mind:


1. Trayvon Martin was walking home. No, the time line shows he wasn't walking home because he would have been home. He would have been home before GZ saw him. He would have been home after GZ saw him. We can speculate all day what he was doing or why, but he was not just walking home.


2. GZ was not seriously injured so had no justification for shooting. Having already been seriously injured is not the legal standard for using deadly force to prevent serious injury, just like a person doesn't have to already be dead to used deadly force to prevent being killed.


3. George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin. Of itself, "profiled" means nothing. The assertion is he profiled TM for being African-American. We don't even know if GZ KNEW TM was African-American when he phoned the police. It was dark, hood over TM's head and GZ never mentioned his race until the police operator asked - but then TM was walking towards GZ. Actually, by his record GZ can prove he is more anti-racism than about anyone on this forum. However, doesn't matter if he is a racist anyway. It's not illegal to be a racist. Al Sharpston is still a free man, isn't he? So are people in the KKK. There is nothing to show GZ racially profiled TM - and it is totally irrelevant if he had anyway.


4. This is more about irrelevancy, but who gives a **** want the "Neighborhood Watch" private association thinks? Yeah, they think only police should have guns. Who cares what they think? Their rules are not law, so they are irrelevant to anything.


5. GZ assaulted a police officer in the past. No, he was never charged with that. He shoved a cop off a pal and the dismissed charge was interfering, not assaulting. Interfering is usually a *****-ass-charge anyway.


6. GZ followed TM. No, we don't know that. It appears GZ stayed to the sidewalk to see where TM went to, but there is no evidence GZ "followed" TM.


7. TM was a "child." No, he was legally a "minor," not "a child."


8. GZ was told not to follow TM. No, never happened. A telephone receptionist for the police said GZ didn't need to follow TM. So?


YET, on the other side there also are false assertions of truisms:


9. It started when TM sucker slammed GZ in the face. No, we don't know that at all. It is entirely possible GZ "started it" as a physical fight.


GZ had been security for private parties, some use the word "bouncer." It is the practice of bouncers and security if some punk gets in your face violating your space, you shove that punk back hard. GZ had the weight, likely self confident, to think he could shove TM back easily. And he had shoved that cop. GZ is a "shover." It is entirely possible that GZ shoved TM to back him off. And TM then responded by slamming GZ in the face. IF that is how it happened, TM could slam GZ in the face. And the fight was on and GZ was losing. Maybe they were struggling over the gun fast. Maybe GZ was just too slow to make any of his upward punches strike home.


We do NOT know that TM threw the first "punch" or made the first aggressive physical contact. The TRUISM is that there is no ****ing way we can know who turned it into a physical conflict - ie who started the fight. And we can't know means not guilty.

LAST - but not about falsely asserted truisms...

10. Maybe true, but very annoying - sneering that GZ wanted to be a police officer as if that shows psychological disturbance. Incessantly sneering he is "a wannabe cop." I don't know about you, but that sort of pisses me off. The contempt the media showed for police officers in that was stunning - and of course many on this forum joined in. There is NOTHING wrong in someone wanting to be a police officer. What is wrong with someone wanting to be a police officer?


OK, where am I wrong on the endlessly asserted certain truism that have never been truisms - instead always were just speculations - or outright false?
 
Last edited:

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,931
Reaction score
21,529
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Again, I'm not exactly arguing the case - rather all the things people declared as absolutely true - when they were not or were really unknown.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,153
Reaction score
14,375
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Someone on another thread said that Trayvon came up behind Zimmerman and tried to intimidate him by circling around him. That was the first time I'd heard that truism. But just supposing that Zimmerman was intimidated by Trayvon, then wouldn't his reaction be to put his hand on his gun? And then wouldn't Trayvon's reaction be to keep Zimmerman from reaching his gun?
 

sharon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Concerning 1 thru 8 you should check your facts with the evidence dumps.
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,944
Reaction score
9,014
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Better call AS and JJ to clear it with them. ;)
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,931
Reaction score
21,529
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Concerning 1 thru 8 you should check your facts with the evidence dumps.
Name of of those that is a known certain truism as you often claimed?
 

sharon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Name of of those that is a known certain truism as you often claimed?
They know why it took TM so long to get home.... from both George and Rachel.
 

Jon Slice

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
117
Reaction score
44
Location
Central Florida & Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Someone on another thread said that Trayvon came up behind Zimmerman and tried to intimidate him by circling around him. That was the first time I'd heard that truism. But just supposing that Zimmerman was intimidated by Trayvon, then wouldn't his reaction be to put his hand on his gun? And then wouldn't Trayvon's reaction be to keep Zimmerman from reaching his gun?
No. Just because you feel intimidated by someone doesn't mean you reach for your gun. You reach for your gun when you intend to use it. You reach fro your gun when you feel deadly force is necessary. Sometimes situations change between the time you reach for your gun and the time you use deadly force and it ends up that no shots are fired but that's pretty much how it goes.

I'm pretty sure that no one on here knows GZ personally. You all only have the assumptions that run through your heads. The only evidence of any bad personality traits out there for people to find are of TM. The anti-gun, anti self defense, white guilt laden/black race baiting or pimping people are never going to look at the true evidence of this case, the character of the witnesses and their testimony and see how the true legal outcome should be. They are only going to keep up their emotional tyrants about what they "FEEL" should have been the outcome because of what they "FEEL" was right and wrong. They do not care about true facts or laws they only care about what they "FEEL". This is why we have the current executive administration that we have.
 

sharon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
No. Just because you feel intimidated by someone doesn't mean you reach for your gun. You reach for your gun when you intend to use it. You reach fro your gun when you feel deadly force is necessary. Sometimes situations change between the time you reach for your gun and the time you use deadly force and it ends up that no shots are fired but that's pretty much how it goes.

I'm pretty sure that no one on here knows GZ personally. You all only have the assumptions that run through your heads. The only evidence of any bad personality traits out there for people to find are of TM. The anti-gun, anti self defense, white guilt laden/black race baiting or pimping people are never going to look at the true evidence of this case, the character of the witnesses and their testimony and see how the true legal outcome should be. They are only going to keep up their emotional tyrants about what they "FEEL" should have been the outcome because of what they "FEEL" was right and wrong. They do not care about true facts or laws they only care about what they "FEEL". This is why we have the current executive administration that we have.
George has a history of violent physical outbursts.
 

WorldWatcher

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
3,051
Reaction score
1,501
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
3. George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin. Of itself, "profiled" means nothing. The assertion is he profiled TM for being African-American. We don't even know if GZ KNEW TM was African-American when he phoned the police. It was dark, hood over TM's head and GZ never mentioned his race until the police operator asked - but then TM was walking towards GZ. Actually, by his record GZ can prove he is more anti-racism than about anyone on this forum. However, doesn't matter if he is a racist anyway. It's not illegal to be a racist. Al Sharpston is still a free man, isn't he? So are people in the KKK. There is nothing to show GZ racially profiled TM - and it is totally irrelevant if he had anyway.
Just to point out...

1. When Zimmerman called the police he identified Martin as African-American with no delay when asked by the dispatcher at about the 30 second mark. It wasn't until later that Zimmerman said he was walking toward him which was after he said he'd driven to the clubhouse. (Confirmed by listening to the NEN call.)

2. Martin was standing under street light when Zimmerman made his call. (This is what Zimmerman said when he pointed out the address in the reenactment video.)

3. Martin was standing between the poles in the front yard (again Zimmerman reenactment video) so since he was traveling north on Retreat View Circle which then bends to the right to go east, Martin - in front of the house - would have been in full view of Zimmerman's headlights and only about the width of a two lane rode away (from the drivers side of the truck to the grass between the two polls shown in the photos).


Zimmerman_1460RVC.jpgZimmerman_1460RVC2.jpgZimmerman_1460RVC4.jpg


5. GZ assaulted a police officer in the past. No, he was never charged with that. He shoved a cop off a pal and the dismissed charge was interfering, not assaulting. Interfering is usually a *****-ass-charge anyway.
Actually he was.

You can go to this link and search by name -->> http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/default.aspx

The charges were later reduced to misdemeanor resisting and officer without violence as part of a plea deal to enter a pretrial diversion program where he addended anger management classes. The charges were only dropped after he'd completed courses.

2005-CF-009525-A-O
ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL
10/05/1983

07/18/2005
Div 10
OKane, Julie H

Criminal Felony
Closed

CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE
BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER


6. GZ followed TM. No, we don't know that. It appears GZ stayed to the sidewalk to see where TM went to, but there is no evidence GZ "followed" TM.
Sure there is. The dispathcer asked him if he was following the individual and Zimmerman replied yes.


8. GZ was told not to follow TM. No, never happened. A telephone receptionist for the police said GZ didn't need to follow TM. So?
The call center is staffed by 911 Operators (they handle both the non-emergency and emergency calls, they are not "receptionists"). The dispatcher that testified is a 911 Operator.

So while technically true, Zimmerman's own impression of the conversation was "The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect & that an officer was in route." (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/22/us/21george-zimmerman-transcript.html?_r=0)



OK, where am I wrong on the endlessly asserted certain truism that have never been truisms - instead always were just speculations - or outright false?
The items that needed correction above are made simply for accuracy.



>>>>
 

Jon Slice

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
117
Reaction score
44
Location
Central Florida & Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
George has a history of violent physical outbursts.
Don't just post a statement. Show me. Show police reports or tweetz or fb messages or something like the many, many things all over the web regarding TM. Don't just repeat something you have heard. And one incident does nat a "History of" make.
 
Last edited:

sharon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Don't just post a statement. Show me. Show police reports or tweetz or fb messages or something like the many, many things all over the web regarding TM. Don't just repeat something you have heard. And one incident does nat a "History of" make.
Go to George's mugshot and arrest record.. Its been posted repeatedly.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Someone on another thread said that Trayvon came up behind Zimmerman and tried to intimidate him by circling around him. That was the first time I'd heard that truism. But just supposing that Zimmerman was intimidated by Trayvon, then wouldn't his reaction be to put his hand on his gun? And then wouldn't Trayvon's reaction be to keep Zimmerman from reaching his gun?
Then Trayvon commited the crime of attempted theft of a firearm and assault.
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,931
Reaction score
21,529
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They know why it took TM so long to get home.... from both George and Rachel.
TM didn't get home, but why do you say it took him so long? And how does that equate to him "just walking home?"
 

sharon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
TM didn't get home, but why do you say it took him so long? And how does that equate to him "just walking home?"
It started raining heavily and he stopped under the lighted mail kiosk at the side of the clubhouse.. talked on the phone.

George's timeline couldn't be questioned in court.. but it will be in civil suit.
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,931
Reaction score
21,529
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just to point out...

1. When Zimmerman called the police he identified Martin as African-American with no delay when asked by the dispatcher at about the 30 second mark. It wasn't until later that Zimmerman said he was walking toward him which was after he said he'd driven to the clubhouse. (Confirmed by listening to the NEN call.)

2. Martin was standing under street light when Zimmerman made his call. (This is what Zimmerman said when he pointed out the address in the reenactment video.)

3. Martin was standing between the poles in the front yard (again Zimmerman reenactment video) so since he was traveling north on Retreat View Circle which then bends to the right to go east, Martin - in front of the house - would have been in full view of Zimmerman's headlights and only about the width of a two lane rode away (from the drivers side of the truck to the grass between the two polls shown in the photos).


View attachment 67150892View attachment 67150893View attachment 67150894




Actually he was.

You can go to this link and search by name -->> http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/default.aspx

The charges were later reduced to misdemeanor resisting and officer without violence as part of a plea deal to enter a pretrial diversion program where he addended anger management classes. The charges were only dropped after he'd completed courses.

2005-CF-009525-A-O
ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL
10/05/1983

07/18/2005
Div 10
OKane, Julie H

Criminal Felony
Closed

CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE
BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER




Sure there is. The dispathcer asked him if he was following the individual and Zimmerman replied yes.




The call center is staffed by 911 Operators (they handle both the non-emergency and emergency calls, they are not "receptionists"). The dispatcher that testified is a 911 Operator.

So while technically true, Zimmerman's own impression of the conversation was "The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect & that an officer was in route." (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/22/us/21george-zimmerman-transcript.html?_r=0)





The items that needed correction above are made simply for accuracy.



>>>>
OK, in response, while you make a good case that GZ likely knew TM was African-American, that still is not a truism. Since TM had a hood on, we don't know if his face was towards GZ prior to or at the time of the call. Maybe a strong likelihood.

I stand corrected on what GZ was initially arrested for. So I was in accurate and that claim of being arrested for assaulting an officer was accurate. However, he was not convicted of doing so. Therefore it is not a truism that he assaulted an officer nor would that be allowed in court. But it is true that is why he was initially arrested.

GZ was not told to not follow, but it is accurate that is how GZ interpreted it.

A 911 "operator" is the more correct term. Operator and receptionist mean about the same, but "operator" and "dispatcher" is more accurate, although GZ did not dial 911. What is most relevant is that the "operator"/dispatcher is not a police officer so whatever he said is not the instruction/command of a police officer.

However, GOOD detail research on your part.
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,931
Reaction score
21,529
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It started raining heavily and he stopped under the lighted mail kiosk at the side of the clubhouse.. talked on the phone.

George's timeline couldn't be questioned in court.. but it will be in civil suit.
So it would have been more accurate to say "TM was just standing under a lighted mail kiosk at the clubhouse" rather than "just walking home." Right?
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,931
Reaction score
21,529
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Then Trayvon commited the crime of attempted theft of a firearm and assault.
That is a not a certainty. It cannot be known for certain who started the physical conflict nor what TM's motives were in any of this. What GZ said doesn't not constitute a certainty, it's just his statement that you can believe or not. Nothing more and nothing less. Despite all that is known and all that can be speculated on or even making an educated likelihood, the critical "facts" really are not known as certainties - nor ever will be.

Only GZ knows, and even then the mind is so tricky in stress and memory plus the confusions of the chaos and violence he may not even entirely know.
 

sharon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
So it would have been more accurate to say "TM was just standing under a lighted mail kiosk at the clubhouse" rather than "just walking home." Right?
To get out of the heavy rain..
 

sharon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
OK, in response, while you make a good case that GZ likely knew TM was African-American, that still is not a truism. Since TM had a hood on, we don't know if his face was towards GZ prior to or at the time of the call. Maybe a strong likelihood.

I stand corrected on what GZ was initially arrested for. So I was in accurate and that claim of being arrested for assaulting an officer was accurate. However, he was not convicted of doing so. Therefore it is not a truism that he assaulted an officer nor would that be allowed in court. But it is true that is why he was initially arrested.

GZ was not told to not follow, but it is accurate that is how GZ interpreted it.

A 911 "operator" is the more correct term. Operator and receptionist mean about the same, but "operator" and "dispatcher" is more accurate, although GZ did not dial 911. What is most relevant is that the "operator"/dispatcher is not a police officer so whatever he said is not the instruction/command of a police officer.

However, GOOD detail research on your part.
George answered the dispatcher... and agreed not to follow.
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,931
Reaction score
21,529
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
George has a history of violent physical outbursts.
Actually he doesn't as a certainty. You base it on mutual restraining orders by and against an ex, someone saying he was rough with women as a "bouncer" (all bouncers are rough), and the arrest that was dismissed. A similar case could be made that TM had a violent history and nature from his messages and texts.

But that all adds up to nothing. I have an exorbitant history of physical violence spanning 2 1/2 decades starting around age 4 - but that 1.) would not establish I committed a violent crime in the future and 2.) does not establish I ever committed a violent crime in the past. Nor do GZ nor TM have any convictions of a crime of violence. Even is so, that would NOT prove anything of what happened nor would even be admissible unless GZ took the stand to testify.

Throughout this, you have pretended you are a psychiatrist and then declared your evaluation to be both a truism and relevant.
 
Last edited:

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,931
Reaction score
21,529
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No. Just because you feel intimidated by someone doesn't mean you reach for your gun. You reach for your gun when you intend to use it. You reach fro your gun when you feel deadly force is necessary. Sometimes situations change between the time you reach for your gun and the time you use deadly force and it ends up that no shots are fired but that's pretty much how it goes.

I'm pretty sure that no one on here knows GZ personally. You all only have the assumptions that run through your heads. The only evidence of any bad personality traits out there for people to find are of TM. The anti-gun, anti self defense, white guilt laden/black race baiting or pimping people are never going to look at the true evidence of this case, the character of the witnesses and their testimony and see how the true legal outcome should be. They are only going to keep up their emotional tyrants about what they "FEEL" should have been the outcome because of what they "FEEL" was right and wrong. They do not care about true facts or laws they only care about what they "FEEL". This is why we have the current executive administration that we have.
I suppose that really is my point. Nearly everyone was declaring FACTS based upon how they FEEL about it.

Actually, it would not be decisive nor establish what actually happened if it was proven that TM was a gangbanger who had been in 1000 fights nor if it proven GZ was a KKK Grand Dragon. A criminal case isn't about likeability, nor is it judging the goodness or badness of a person or the person's past - other than a FINAL criminal conviction is admissible for any witness EXCEPT the Defendant if he does not testify. Arrests are not admissible if there was not conviction.

What was unfortunate is reading how many people demanded GZ go to prison because they believe he is a rotten person, not upon evidence.
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
George answered the dispatcher... and agreed not to follow.
The dispatcher told George that they didn't need him to follow Martin. George simply said "okay".
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,931
Reaction score
21,529
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
George answered the dispatcher... and agreed not to follow.

"Following" someone is a subjective term IF GZ was staying to the sidewalk to see where TM was going, rather than directly running after TM.
 
Top Bottom